One thing you can always count on when New Zealanders get a rush of blood to their heads and elect a National government; tax cuts for the rich; big debt; state asset sales to pay for tax cuts and debt; cuts to social services; and high unemployment.

The following media reports tell a story – a story most of us knew intuitively. (National/ACT supporters look away now.)

A source has revealed to this blogger that part of that “reprioritised spending” will be cutting Dept of Corrections’ anti-corruption staff from their current eight investigators, to only four – a 50% reduction.

All eight of the investigators will be required to re-apply for their jobs by 24 June, and is part of a much larger ‘re-structuring’ of Corrections, where up to 150 prison officers and other staff will have to re-apply for their jobs.

It is this anti-corruption team that recently investigated allegations of corruption amongst Corrections staff at Rimutaka prison.

If true, this is yet another example of National breaking it’s committments to the public that no frontline staff will be affected in National’s cuts to state sector workers. In effect, another of National’s lies.

As parents and teachers are now discovering to their disgust and dismay, national will be cutting teaching numbers from various schools – mostly technology staff.

It is only a matter of time befire these cuts to social and state services will be begin to impact on our communities, and our quality of life.

Can you please confirm that part of that “reprioritised spending” will be cutting Dept of Corrections’s anti-corruption staff from their current eight investigators, to only four – a 50% in reduction.

According to my source, all eight of the investigators with be required to re-apply for their jobs by 24 June, along with 150 other Correctiions staff.

If this information is accurate, please explain how cutting corruption investigators and prison officers is not reducing front-line staff?

Regards,

-Frank MacskasyBlogger,“Frankly Speaking”

.

Subject: Thank you for your emailDate: Wednesday, 30 May, 2012 12:31 PMFrom: “Hon. Anne Tolley (MIN)” <Anne.Tolley@parliament.govt.nz>To: “Frank Macskasy” <fmacskasy@yahoo.com>On behalf of Hon Anne Tolley, thank you for your email which has been received by this office. Your correspondence has been noted and will be recorded.

Your email will be forwarded to the Minister for consideration, and a response will be sent as soon as possible. However, if your email is bringing some information to the attention of the Minister, please regard this as a final response to your email.

Kudos to Human Rights Commissioner, Dr Judy McGregor, for getting out of her office to work ‘undercover’ in a residential aged care hospital. She discovered, first hand, the incredible hard work that rest home care-workers do – for the obscenely pitiful sum of $13.61 – caring for our elderly parents, grandparents, other family members, spouses, and friends.

The media report referred to,

” Although there were hoists to pull people from beds, there was still a lot of heavy lifting, and she was constantly worried she would hurt or drop someone. ” – Ibid

This blogger is aware of the risks to resthome workers from heavy lifting. I am aware of one young woman who was a worker for Presbyterian Support Services, in the late 1990s. She damaged her back and went on ACC for rehabilitation. Within a few months, she had lost her job at PSS; ACC used one of their corporate medical specialists in Auckland to “re-assess” her; and she was ‘transferred’ to WINZ and put on to a sickness benefit. No further rehab – she was now a beneficiary and someone elses’ problem.

New Zealanders should be very worried about the poor pay and support given to resthome careworkers.

We are all aging. A growing number of us will end up in rest homes – to be cared for by these low-paid workers. And we’ve been lucky so far in that resthome workers are deeply dedicated to their clients. As Dr McGregor said,

” The complexity of the job was actually a surprise for me. It’s quite physical work, and it’s emotionally draining because you are obliged to give of yourself to other people. Saint-like women do it every day so that older New Zealanders can have a quality of life… At the end of the day, carers are being paid less than the minimum wage for work that is grossly undervalued. “

The question we should be asking ourselves is; how much longer can we rely on the good will of these workers?

All New Zealand workers are getting older – and this includes those rest home workers currently caring for the aged and infirm. The number of workers paying taxes to support retirees will be dropping from now onwards (a fact which National continues to ignore),

” At present, there are about 18 elderly people (i.e., 65 years and over) per 100 people of ‘working age’ (i.e., 15-64 years). By 2051, this ratio is predicted to increase to 43 per 100. ” – Source

Which means that as we move closer to the middle of this century, there will be fewer and fewer people in the workforce. This will put pressure on labour demand. That will result in pressure on wages. That will result in a labour shortage, as we saw in the early 2000s, during the previous Labour government.

As we Baby Boomers and Gen Yers reach retirement – who will be caring for us? Who will be wiping our chins and butts?

CTU spokeswoman Eileen Brown said that pay and work conditions had been a concern since the 1990s, and had continued to worsen. She’s right,

.

.

When this issue was presented to Dear Leader, he leapt into instant, immediate, action,

” It’s one of those things we’d love to do if we had the cash. As the country moves back to surplus it’s one of the areas we can look at but I think most people would accept this isn’t the time we have lots of extra cash.

“You could certainly change the proportion of where you spend money in health. We spend about $14.5 billion in the overall health sector.

“What’s going to go to pay the increase in this area? If you said all of the increase is going to go into this area, that would be roughly $600m over the forecast period which is four years… So that would have left us $1bn for other things.

“We put the money into cancer care and nursing and various other things. On balance, we think we got that about right. “

No, Mr Key, you did not “get this about right”.

How can you have “got it about right”, Mr Key, when careworkers for our aged and infirm are paid rates that have been thoroughly condemned, by Dr McGregor, as ” a form of modern-day slavery “?

It is interesting that John Key complains about a lack of funds,

” It’s one of those things we’d love to do if we had the cash. As the country moves back to surplus it’s one of the areas we can look at but I think most people would accept this isn’t the time we have lots of extra cash. “

Perhaps National would not have to wait until “ the country moves back to surplus ” – had they not cut taxes in 2009 nand 2010.

The 2009 tax cuts cost New Zealand $1 billion in lost revenue – there was no corresponding rise in GST,

” New Zealand households will get a billion-dollar-a-year boost from tax cuts which take effect this week, Finance Minister Bill English and Revenue Minister Peter Dunne said today. “

That’s roughly $3 billion in lost revenue. Which would have been ample cash to even double the wage rate for careworkers.

The first round of tax cuts on 1 April 2009 defies any logic. Especially when one considers that Treasury was already predicting a massive Budget blow-out and deficit as the global financial crisis and recession impacted on our own economy. The looming deficit was already known, a month before,

Even the Opposition Labour party was supportive of a more rational, prudent fiscal approach,

” Labour has recently said it would support the government if it deferred the April tax cuts because of the rapid deterioration of the global economy. Prime Minister John Key has said the cuts will go ahead. ” – Ibid

Madmen were in control of the country’s treasury, and were hell-bent of spraying tax-dollars around, as if we were still in the booming mid-2000s.

Unfortunately, three years later, the tax-cut revellry was over; Treasury was empty; and we are living the consequences of the ‘Mother of All Fiscal Hangovers‘, owing billions in debt. (As an aside – it’s crazy how so many New Zealanders still harbour delusions of National’s “prudent fiscal management”.)

Little wonder that John Key is adamant that we don’t have the cash to raise the wages of our lowest paid healthcare/resthome workers. He’s telling the truth.

Because Dear Leader and National ‘partied like drunken sailors’ and frittered $3 billion away in an orgy of profligate tax cuts.

That is why rest home workers are struggling to survive on $13.61 an hour.

I wonder… who’s going to look after us when we retire?

Because as more workers retire, and the labour market shrinks, we are faced with only two stark choices,

Reverse the taxcuts and/or User Pays to pay for rest home workers in the coming decades,

Police Commissioner, Peter Marshall appeared on TVNZ’s Q+A on 27 May, to front on the issue of the Urewera raids five years ago. There was a rather remarkable exchange between Mr Marshall and the interview, Shane Taurima,

.

PETER MARSHALL – Police Commissioner Well, I think it’s fair to say that there was no particular target or set of targets identified, but it was against a backdrop of a firearm, for instance, being dismantled and being set down to Wellington; against a backdrop of discussions about a sniper rifle and a silencer; discussions about destroying property and explosives; and, of course, there were the threats in relation to people – to actually kill people. It was against that chemistry built up over a number of weeks that there was growing alarm, and in fact the High Court judge who was signing the renewal warrants was making it quite clear that the police should be actually taking action as a result of the submissions – May, June – that process-

SHANE So you were confident at the time that they did actually have a target?

PETER Well, we were certainly very alarmed at the increasing number of discussions, the nature of those discussions. As I said, they dismantled a firearm, took it through to Wellington-

SHANE Did you know, though, at the time, Commissioner, what their target was?

PETER No, as I’ve said, we didn’t know their particular target. It’s a matter of balance. Do we actually wait until something happens, the unthinkable happens? And then, of course, you can imagine the commentary then. Or do we, at an appropriate time, take action because we need to take action-

SHANE So what did you expect them to do?

PETER Well, they were talking about causing damage, by way of explosives, to buildings. They were talking about killing people. They weren’t specific in relation to it. They actually talked about creating a lot of mayhem around the country. They talked about a revolutionary arm, if you like. We don’t know the specifics. But what we were convinced about, it wasn’t just idle talk. There was a lot of commentary that gave us as investigators and indeed, as I mentioned, the High Court judge also expressed alarm. We were, in a very considered way, very worried about what they might as a group or individually- They were getting themselves all psyched up, and we decided to take the action that you are well aware of.

SHANE Commissioner, if it was that serious, why, then, did you allow the leader of the opposition at the time, our current Prime Minister John Key, to visit the area two months before the raids took place?

PETER There was no suggestion that he was in any shape or form a target. He wasn’t the prime minister of the day. It was a very considered approach in terms of whether he should go there. He was invited there by senior iwi. We did a risk assessment in relation to that particular location. At that time there was no threat assessment against him-

SHANE But we understand that there were reports at the time of him being a target.

PETER Not that I’m specifically aware of. But be assured that we would not have let him as leader of the opposition go into that area if we, at that particular stage, thought he was at risk. So we covered that off.

SHANE But you didn’t know the target, though, Commissioner.

PETER No, that’s true, but we were very convinced that the security arrangements around him at that time were sufficient, and in relation to our threat assessment, there was no risk to him.

SHANE The other fact, too, that we’re told is that Mr Key had no cops. He had no police escort in the area.

PETER Well, I’m not telling the audience what he did and didn’t have, but suffice to say that there was appropriate security for him backed up by a threat assessment in relation to that one visit on that one day in that very specific area. We wouldn’t have taken any risks in that regard.

SHANE We’re also told that one of the targets was the president of the United States at the time, George W Bush, and that they were thinking of ways to assassinate him, if you like, was to catapult a bus on to him.

PETER I’m not aware of that particular approach, but I’m certainly aware that President Bush’s name was mentioned in conversations. I don’t know what context. But that doesn’t take away from the fact that there were a number of remarks made about the use of explosives, about attacking institutions, and indeed killing people.

It’s fair to say that there was no particular target or set of targets identified.

They were talking about killing people. They weren’t specific in relation to it.

But what we were convinced about, it wasn’t just idle talk.

John Key, visited the area two months before the raids took place.

Police did a risk assessment in relation to that particular location.

There were alleged reports at the time of John Key being a target.

Police were not specifically aware of of Key being a target, “that’s true “, but Police were very convinced that the security arrangements around him at that time were sufficient, and in relation to our threat assessment, there was no risk to him.

So to distill Mr Marshall’s comments down to the very basic essence; Police claim to have overheard talk of killing unspecified, targets, and despite believing it was not just “idle talk” – permitted John Key – the then-Leader of the Opposition – to venture into the area just two months before the raids took place???

And considering that Mr Marshall confirmed that the investigation took 18 months leading up to the raids – that means that the suspects were under surveillance for around 16 months.

In that period of time, they must have collected considerable quantities of information leading up to the raids and arrests on 15 October 2007 – and they still allowed the leader of the National Party – a centre-right political group that would have been an ideal target for so-called violent revolutionaries – to venture into an area of significant police operations?!

Police claim they picked up talk of killings and destruction taking place at “terrorist training grounds” – and they allowed John Key to visit the place?

On top of that is the suggestion that Key was allowed into the area without significant, or any, police protection.

Does this sound remotely sensible or credible to anyone?

Furthermore, when Shane Taurima asked Mr Marshall, ” Do you think that Tame Iti is capable of killing a person? ” – the Police Commissioner replied, ” I have no idea “.

Really? He had “no idea”? So who did all the talking about killing people?

Mr Marshall certainly couldn’t answer whether Tame Iti or Urs Signer, a pacifist, could kill any one – despite Police closely monitoring, listening, surveilling, and watching all the suspects for a solid year and a half.

Mr Marshall’s credibility took a final ‘hit’ when Shane Taurima asked,

” So would you, for example, take the same approach in other areas like Remuera or Parnell? “

Mr Marshall replied,

” Very much so. “

Bollocks. Total bollocks.

Ruatoki was closed down by police, and roads were blocked,

.

.

Entire families, including women and children, were forced at gunpoint from their homes and confined in garages for most of the day (over nine hours by many accounts), as the raids were undertaken. The entire village was in lock down.

Whilst properties were raided in Wellington, Auckland, and elsewhere, there was no lock-down of entire suburbs, and nor were entire streets blocked off. Middle Class Pakeha sensibilities were… treated with respect and consideration.

.

.

The same could not be said of a small village in the Ureweras, where the full power of the State was being unleashed.

No, Mr Marshall, you did not take the same approach in other areas like Remuera or Parnell.

Having watched the Q+A interview with Police Commissioner Marshall; having listened vary carefully to what he said; noting his tone, facial features, and body language; and trying to make sense out of his contradictory statements, I am left with the following impressions;

There is more to this issue than Mr Marshal has told us. It makes no sense that John Key was permitted into an area where a 16 month-long (at that point) operation investigating potential “terrorist-activity” was being conducted.

A full Royal Commission of Inquiry should be undertaken – preferably with Commission members appointed from other Commonwealth nations (UK, Nigeria, Australia, India, Canada, etc).

The Terrorism Suppression Act must be repealed immediatly. This law is a vile obscenity that has no place in a civilised society.

If history teachers us anything, it is that injustice like this cannot be left to fester.